On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:10:29 -0600
Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think the spec should just be upgraded because it isn't exactly
obvious to the casual dev what is a 3.0 feature vs 3.1, etc. We
already have 3.1 features in the tree, I'm not sure where the red
tape is here.
The
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:02:29 -0800
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
- PMS, bug #250077: Do we need to get involved in this? (-dev)
The question for this one, really, is whether people are happy having
such a vaguely specified utility whose behaviour keeps changing in
ways that break
On 16:11 Thu 22 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:10:29 -0600
Jeremy Olexa darks...@gentoo.org wrote:
I think the spec should just be upgraded because it isn't exactly
obvious to the casual dev what is a 3.0 feature vs 3.1, etc. We
already have 3.1 features in the
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:56:23 -0800
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can this be fixed by adding bash dependencies to things using new
features? As long as we keep them out of the build path of bash,
things ought to work.
Only if you're guaranteed bash 3.1 on boxes that do metadata
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 5:02 PM, Ciaran McCreesh
ciaran.mccre...@googlemail.com wrote:
Only if you're guaranteed bash 3.1 on boxes that do metadata
generation. Which means it won't work for overlays.
Come to think of it... This is yet another reason GLEP 55 is necessary.
--
Ciaran McCreesh
On 17:02 Thu 22 Jan , Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 08:56:23 -0800
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Can this be fixed by adding bash dependencies to things using new
features? As long as we keep them out of the build path of bash,
things ought to work.
Only
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:28:31 -0800
Donnie Berkholz dberkh...@gentoo.org wrote:
Only if you're guaranteed bash 3.1 on boxes that do metadata
generation. Which means it won't work for overlays.
I'm not an expert on metadata generation, so please tell me if I'm
wrong here. Most if not all
On 18:23 Thu 22 Jan , Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Discuss on-list before meeting
---
- Council meta stuff (-council)
- Can the size change? Minimum? Maximum?
- Should we have 2-year staggered terms?
I'm in favor of a
Ulrich Mueller wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jan 2009, Tobias Scherbaum wrote:
- PMS, bug #250077: Do we need to get involved in this? (-dev)
We haven't been asked to get involved, therefore we don't need to.
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/59321/focus=59324
well,
This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed
to show up, then show up
On 15:35 Wed 21 Jan , Donnie Berkholz wrote:
This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
If you're supposed to show up, please show
Donnie Berkholz wrote:
This is your one-day friendly reminder ! The monthly Gentoo Council
meeting is tomorrow in #gentoo-council on irc.freenode.net. See the
channel topic for the exact time (but it's probably 2000 UTC).
If you're supposed to show up, please show up. If you're not supposed
On 21:28 Wed 21 Jan , Jeremy Olexa wrote:
Can we get a consensus on bash version in the tree? this thread[1] is
unresolved. I understand that the PMS draft is not set in stone (or
something), but please...let's progress and update the spec[2]. I feel
that this makes it hard for other
13 matches
Mail list logo
